January 11, 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.
Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere. Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.
In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto’s GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto’s GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
The undying support of key players within the U.S. towards Monsanto is undeniably made clear not only in this release, but in the legislative decisions taken by organizations such as the FDA and USDA. Legislative decisions such as allowing Monsanto’s synthetic hormone Posilac (rBGH) to be injected into U.S. cows despite being banned in 27 countries. How did Monsanto pull this off?
April 15th, 2011
By: Angela Kim
You may have heard Adriene Hill’s story on fake chicken on the Marketplace Morning Report. But, why chow down on something fake when you can get the real thing?
We asked Dr. Fu-Hung Hsieh.
He and his team of researchers at University of Missouri have come up with a sustainable chicken alternative. Check out the video to see how it’s made… and how it tastes.
We talked to Dr. Hsieh about his work and his vision for the future.
Dr. Fu-Hung Hsieh
Professor, Biological Engineering Department
University of Missouri
1) Explain your work in one paragraph.
Develop an energy-efficient technology for producing products that exhibit whole muscle meat-like visual appearance and taste sensation using renewable plant-based proteins and fibers. These products closely resemble chicken or turkey breast meat but deliver more high quality protein. They are expected to appeal to both vegetarian and non-vegetarian consumers.
2) What’s your hope about the future?
More people will be willing to commit themselves to become a steward of earth, make a concerted effort so that their lifestyle will become more environmentally friendly.
3) What’s your fear about the future?
The general public and our policy makers choose to ignore or refuse to face the reality of accelerated environmental changes due to man-made activities. Consumers refuse to make a shift to a more sustainable product and lifestyle.
4) How does your work help prepare for the future?
Our work is just one of many that lead to a more sustainable food product. We hope by providing a product that looks like chicken, feels like chicken and tastes like chicken, it will be easier for consumers to accept and gradually make the shift in their food choice.
5) What advice do you have for others to prepare for the future?
We have to think of our children. Our attitudes and actions toward environmental sustainability will have a profound impact to our future generations.
6) How optimistic are you about the future?
Every crisis leads to a new opportunity. While there might be setbacks from time to time, overall tomorrow will be better. Humans are living longer and lead to more productive lives. The advances in technology, internet, medicine, environmental remediation, and many other key areas will help us confront and overcome many new challenges we may face. We will recognize that we have to be a steward of earth. It is a small world after all.
August 6th, 2010
By: Laura Roberts
The Bio-Bug has been converted by a team of British engineers to be powered by biogas, which is produced from human waste at sewage works across the country.
They believe the car is a viable alternative to electric vehicles.
Excrement flushed down the lavatories of just 70 homes is enough to power the car for 10,000 miles – the equivalent of one average motoring year.
This conversion technology has been used in the past but the Bio-Bug is Britain’s first car to run on methane gas without its performance being reduced.
It can power a conventional two litre VW Beetle convertible to 114mph.
Mohammed Saddiq, of sustainable energy firm GENeco, which developed the prototype, claimed that drivers “won’t know the difference”.
He said: “Previously the gas hasn’t been clean enough to fuel motor vehicles without it affecting performance.
“However, through using the latest technology our Bio-Bug drives like any conventional car and what’s more it uses sustainable fuel.
“If you were to drive the car you wouldn’t know it was powered by biogas as it performs just like any conventional car. It is probably the most sustainable car around.”
The Bio-Bug is a conventional 2 litre VW Beetle convertible, which has been modified to run on both conventional fuel and compressed methane gas.
The car is started using unleaded petrol but automatically switches to methane when the engine is “up to temperature”.
If the methane tank runs out the Bio-Bug reverts back to petrol.
Around 18 million cubic metres of biogas is produced from human waste every year at Wessex Water’s sewage treatment works in Avonmouth, Bristol.
The gas is generated through anaerobic digestion – where bugs which are starved of oxygen break down biodegradable material to produce methane.
However, before the gas can be used to power vehicles it must undergo “biogas upgrading” where carbon dioxide is removed to improve performance.
The Bio-Bug does 5.3 miles per cubic metre of biogas, which means that just one sewage works could power 95,400,000 miles per year saving 19,000 tonnes of CO2.
Lord Rupert Redesdale, chairman of The Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association, believes that the Bio-Bug could prove to be the future of green motoring.
He said: “This is a very exciting and forward-thinking project demonstrating the myriad benefits of anaerobic digestion.
“Biomethane cars could be just as important as electric cars, and the water regulator Ofwat should promote the generation of as much biogas as possible through sewage works in the fight against climate change.”
GENeco, which is a sustainable energy company owned by Wessex Water, plans to convert its fleet of vehicles if the Bio-Bug trial proves to be successful.
The Bio-Bug emits three tonnes of carbon dioxide in an average year whilst a conventional vehicle emits 3.5 tonnes.
However, the Bio-Bug is carbon neutral because all of its CO2 would have been released into the atmosphere anyway in the form of methane gas.
Conventional vehicles use fossil fuels, a non-renewable, finite source of energy, and the CO2 they emit would not otherwise have been released into the atmosphere.
June 10, 2010
By David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) A former British agricultural government advisor has said that organic farming should embrace genetically modified (GM) crops as a way to make large-scale agriculture more environmentally sustainable.
Gordon Conway, a professor of international development at Imperial College London, told the Times of London that organic agriculture focuses excessively on what is “natural.” Referring to the exclusion of synthetic technologies from the definition of organic as “rigid,” he said that GM technology should be used to increase crop yields while limiting ecological damage.
Conway’s argument, as reported by the Times, did not appear to address the concerns that critics of biotechnology have raised with GM crops. Conway stated that GM agriculture is just as “natural” as conventional plant breeding, disregarding the argument that bypassing evolutionary processes completely is more likely to have unforeseen consequences. He stated that herbicide-resistant crops have lower carbon footprints because they require less tilling of the soil, apparently ignoring evidence that such crops lead to increased use of toxic chemicals.